Here is a LinkedIn discussion on "What would make TOGAF more usable?" that prompted my post here.
A framework, according to whatis.com, is "a real or conceptual structure intended to serve as a support or guide for the building of something that expands the structure". TOGAF is not a framework in this sense.
TOGAF is not a framework, in the sense that artifacts or building blocks plug into, to give an EA.
Essentially TOGAF is about ADM (Architecture Development Method) an IT project management guide + lots of additional advice from other domains such a requirements and risk management which should not be part of, in my opinion, but referenced by TOGAF. In fact, ADM seems to cover more than the architecture development effort itself.
ADM also extends to such phases that an architect hardly ever controls such as implementation and change management.
Besides the process of transition from one state to another is hardly news. It is common sense. We all do that in our everyday work and life.
TOGAF hardly mentions strategy or roadmapping that are often expected from an EA.
Hence, TOGAF can barely serve the development of an EA. That explains the lack of results.
There is little point in extending TOGAF since it would be too much to prune and too little left afterwards.
Unfortunately, TOGAF has become a production band for unproductive EAs.
See more thoughts on TOGAF in the following:
TOGAF, is it an EA framework?
Training in TOGAF, my unorthodox findings
What is TOGAF offering in terms of Business Architecture?